Jump to content



Photo

Heavy Cruiser Hulls (Concepts)


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 500 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 12:39 PM

Last week was pretty slow so I had some time to cobble this together. I'm not meaning to use these things, just filling in the blanks with a thought experiment.

 

 

 

 

HEAVY CRUISER HULLS

Heavy cruisers were once the backbone of the Imperial Navy. These ancient vessels, rugged warhorses, were heavily armed and armoured, forming a nearly unshakeable line of battle against humanity's enemies. It's ironic that it was human weakness that lead to the class' fall from grace: most were destroyed in the years following the Great Crusade and in the treasons over the millennia since. The few heavy cruisers still in service are untrusted and unwanted, relegated to reserve fleets along with discarded grand cruisers.

 
The battlecruiser experiment proved that there was still room in the Imperial Navy for innovation while at the same time revealing a gap in the line of battle for a ship that could withstand the damage flagships often attracted. Battlecruisers, while heavily armed, were not more durable than the cruisers they were based on and were never designed to do so.
 
In M38, following the reversals and loss on several fronts, admirals from across the Imperium independently issued requests to various forge worlds for a more durable flagship. The Imperium of Man's enemies were learning, isolating and blasting apart squadron commanders and denuding the Navy's command capabilities. Experienced officers were being lost at a far higher rate than they could be replaced, and there were never enough battleships to fill the gap in the lines.
 
The new heavy cruisers were formed from these universal requirements. Firepower was sacrificed for greater endurance, with the hope that the vessels could give navy commanders the resilience to see a battle to its end. Before the dawn of M39, the forge worlds answered and delivered a host of examples from the reborn class. 
 
 
Heavy Cruisers: These ships can use Components meant for cruisers and can also use one non-weapon Component meant for a battlecruiser or a grand cruiser though it may not choose to install a grand cruiser's plasma drives. Heavy cruisers may only turn after moving their full speed. All heavy cruisers may choose Stoic instead of rolling on the Machine Spirit Oddities table.
 
 
 
RESOLVE Class Heavy Cruiser
 
Dimensions: 5.7 km long, 0.9 km abeam at fins approx.
Mass: 35 megatonnes approx.
Crew: 127,000 crew, approx.
Accel: 2.1 gravities max sustainable acceleration.
 
The Resolve is the first heavy cruiser delivered to the Imperial Navy and sets the watermark for the rest of the class. Designed to use the simpler and easily manufactured components of the Lunar class cruiser, the Resolve is the most uncomplicated example of the new heavy cruisers entering Imperial service. Stripped down, it offers a 20% increase in armour protection and a 14% increase in hull integrity which can be further strengthened by diverting power to the field bracings compared to the base Lunar. 
 
Limited to just a pair of broadsides, most Resolve heavy cruisers choose to install longer-reaching las-broadsides to add its weight of fire across longer distances, but many captains are given leave to refit their vessels after a decade of service and this has resulted in a class with varied weapons configurations. Most retain the lance batteries on the dorsal turrets and choose another macrobattery to be mounted on the prow. 
 
Speed: 4
Maoeuvrability: +0
Detection: +10
Hull Integrity: 80
Armour: 24
Turret Rating: 3
Space: 65
SP: 65
Weapon Capacity: Prow 1, Dorsal 1, Port 1, Starboard 1
Heavy Cruiser: In addition to the class' rules above for all heavy cruisers, the Resolve comes pre-equipped with the following Components and cannot be removed: Excess Void Armour, Armour Plating, and Field Bracing with 0 Power assigned. The hull's Space and characteristics have already been reduced to account for these Components and additional Power may be supplied to the Field Bracing to improve Hull strength.
 
 
 
STALWART Class Heavy Cruiser
 
Dimensions: 5.7 km long, 0.85 km abeam at fins approx.
Mass: 34 megatonnes approx.
Crew: 117,000 crew, approx.
Accel: 2.2 gravities max sustainable acceleration.

Not to be outdone, the forge world of Voss Prime submitted two examples of their Stalwart class heavy cruiser to the Imperial Navy for evaluation. Both were then shifted throughout the Imperium on their centuries-long shakedown cruise, assigned to various battlefleets. Both managed to join the Angevin Crusade just as Saint Drusus took command and are considered hero ships in the Calixis Sector. 
 
Unfettered by the need for a more established parts supply line, the Stalwart is both radical and practical. It mounts torpedo tubes to give the heavy cruiser some ship killing power and relies on the overbuilt redundancies and power field bracings to direct fire away from the more volatile parts of the ship. So far, this has kept the stored torpedoes from exploding inside the heavy cruisers.
 
Speed: 4
Maoeuvrability: +5
Detection: +10
Hull Integrity: 78
Armour: 21
Turret Rating: 2
Space: 64
SP: 68
Weapon Capacity: Prow 1, Dorsal 1, Port 1, Starboard 1 (of these slots, 1 prow is pre-equipped with components)
Torpedo Ship: The Stalwart's Prow weapon slot is occupied by a Mars-pattern Torpedo Tube component and cannot be removed. 2 Power must be provided to this Component. The hull's Space has already been reduced to account for this Component. 
Heavy Cruiser: In addition to the class' rules above for all heavy cruisers, the Stalwart comes pre-equipped with the following components and cannot be removed: Armour Plating, Tenebro-Maze,and Field Bracing with 0 Power assigned. The hull's Space has already been reduced to account for these Components, though 1 Power must be provided for the Tenebro-Maze and additional Power may be supplied to the Field Bracing to improve Hull strength.
 
 
 
THRAEX Class Heavy Cruiser
 
Dimensions: 5.9 km long, 0.9 km abeam at fins approx.
Mass: 36 megatonnes approx.
Crew: 136,000 crew, approx.
Accel: 1.5 gravities max sustainable acceleration.
 
Only grudgingly offered to the Imperial Navy for consideration millennia after the initial offerings from other forge worlds, the Thraex class heavy cruiser from the Lathes forge worlds has been lovingly referred to as a semi-mobile battle station. Due to superior engineering, so the Lathes' representatives claim, the Thraex is able to retain the standard cruiser weapons layout. In practice, however, the ship's energy redistribution systems prevent lances from being installed at all. 
 
Still, the Lathes have indulged on the design, stripped down it may be for the Imperial Navy to use. Despite their best efforts to remain isolated, the Navy has successfully impressed upon the Lathes their desire for more examples of this hull and its impressive shield capacitors that has allowed a flagship to shrug off damage like a battleship can once). The slow rate of delivery has not stifled Battlefleet Calixis' enthusiasm and recent deliveries have been arriving sooner and sooner.
 
Speed: 3
Maoeuvrability: +0
Detection: +15
Hull Integrity: 80
Armour: 26
Turret Rating: 3
Space: 66
SP: 70
Weapon Capacity: Prow 1, Port 2, Starboard 2 (the Thraex cannot mount lances at all and may mount a Lathe Pattern Landing Bay in the prow slot)
Heavy Cruiser: In addition to the class' rules above for all heavy cruisers, the Thraex comes pre-equipped with the following components and cannot be removed: Armour Plating and Excess Void Armour. The hull's Space and characteristics have already been reduced to account for these Components.  
Shield Capacitors: The hull comes equipped with Common quality Overload Shield Capacitors. These can be upgraded to good or best qualities during play, or downgraded to Poor quality to reduce the SP cost by 1. 
 
 
 
PERSEVERANCE Class Heavy Cruiser
 
Dimensions: 5.8 km long, 0.9 km abeam at fins approx.
Mass: 33 megatonnes approx.
Crew: 142,000 crew, approx.
Accel: 2.0 gravities max sustainable acceleration.
 
Hailing from the Gothic Sector and reportedly built with the lessons learned from the recent Gothic War, the Perseverance class is a heavy cruiser with an unusually weapons arrangement. It has the potential to bring considerable ship-killing firepower to bear, but almost always requires the use of a rare battlecruiser-grade plasma drive. This has made it mostly unwelcome as it's seen as a poor replacement to even the haphazard Armageddon class battlecruiser. 
 
The most controversial aspect of the design is the installation of a rear-facing lance battery. Set just behind the towering bridge on the aftcastle, the lance batteries can fire aft or to the broadsides without any issues and has given the Perseverance the largest amount of hull kills in the heavy cruiser class. What's clear is that the Perseverance is not meant for command duties as none have been installed with anything but battle bridges.

Speed: 4
Maoeuvrability: +5
Detection: +15
Hull Integrity: 80
Armour: 23
Turret Rating: 3
Space: 65
SP: 69
Weapon Capacity: Prow 1, Port 1, Starboard 1, Aft 1
Heavy Cruiser: In addition to the class' rules above for all heavy cruisers, the Perseverance comes pre-equipped with the following components and cannot be removed: Excess Void Armour, and Field Bracing with 0 Power. The hull's Space and characteristics have already been reduced to account for these Components and additional Power may be supplied to the Field Bracing to improve Hull strength.
 

 

 


  • Erathia and Brother Orpheo like this

Beyond Reach - The New Adventures of the Strom Dynasty

The Tau Fleet | The Tyranid Hive Fleet | Battlefleet Jericho


#2 Ruwalk

Ruwalk

    Member

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:13 PM

oddly this is the class of ship that seemed to be missing from RT but then i'm not sure there mentioned in any fluff though i'm sure someone on here knows one way or the other. Its a good spread of variants through the class but I don't like the Stalwart it does not seem to fit a heavy cruiser seems like it should be faster for not having as heavy armor as the others. Also the Perseverance hull gives a very interesting and different idea would the aft slot allow lance batteries or just single as the arceotech lance would be a very nice fit for it. 



#3 Brother Orpheo

Brother Orpheo

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:33 PM

Characterful, and well presented.


=][=


#4 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 500 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:50 AM

oddly this is the class of ship that seemed to be missing from RT but then i'm not sure there mentioned in any fluff though i'm sure someone on here knows one way or the other. Its a good spread of variants through the class but I don't like the Stalwart it does not seem to fit a heavy cruiser seems like it should be faster for not having as heavy armor as the others. Also the Perseverance hull gives a very interesting and different idea would the aft slot allow lance batteries or just single as the arceotech lance would be a very nice fit for it. 

 

There are a few Heavy Cruisers in Battlefleet Gothic... for Chaos! I reverse engineered the slots and removed one from the Port/Starboard sides to fit in with the new, heavily armoured, direction.

 

The Stalwart's meant to take hits like the others, but with the Tenebro-Maze it'll actually be harder to kill. At least theoretically. ;)

 

I think the Aft slot should allow for Lance Batteries, it's the reverse of the Prow slot after all. Would that be too much?

 

 

Characterful, and well presented.

 

Thank you kindly.


Beyond Reach - The New Adventures of the Strom Dynasty

The Tau Fleet | The Tyranid Hive Fleet | Battlefleet Jericho


#5 Erathia

Erathia

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 09:11 AM

I really like them, although I would not allow a capital-ship Imperial vessel with an Aft battery. I find it goes against how the Imperial Navy tends to build its ships (big engines on the back, giant armoured prow on the front), Picturing their giant flying military church with a lance battery sitting in the rear seems a little off to me, and if the design was possible and as effective as you seem to hint in your fluff for it, then the Imperial Navy would never stop building these ships.


  • Tenebrae likes this

Citizens of Grace! We have defeated both the Dark Eldar and Ork menaces that threatened your system! We need no thanks nor payments, so long as you do not leave the atmosphere during our salvage operations under pain of death! - Jequin Hos of The Hos Dynasty


#6 Chopper Greg

Chopper Greg

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:25 PM

I really like them, although I would not allow a capital-ship Imperial vessel with an Aft battery. I find it goes against how the Imperial Navy tends to build its ships (big engines on the back, giant armoured prow on the front), Picturing their giant flying military church with a lance battery sitting in the rear seems a little off to me, and if the design was possible and as effective as you seem to hint in your fluff for it, then the Imperial Navy would never stop building these ships.

 

 

 

Odd.  To me the Imp Military appears so tradition bound that even if a design is better, it doesn't mean that it will be used.

 

Whether it is true or not, that is not true of RT's, and as such I don't see why RT's, have to stick with Imp Military designs and tradition. 

 

As long as the total number of weapon slots and SPs are not violated, why shouldn't RT's redesign their ships?



#7 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 500 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:25 PM

I really like them, although I would not allow a capital-ship Imperial vessel with an Aft battery. I find it goes against how the Imperial Navy tends to build its ships (big engines on the back, giant armoured prow on the front), Picturing their giant flying military church with a lance battery sitting in the rear seems a little off to me, and if the design was possible and as effective as you seem to hint in your fluff for it, then the Imperial Navy would never stop building these ships.

 

Thanks!

 

Well, it's unproven and quite young, so the Perseverance has that going against it. Plus, it's untraditional, sacrificing forward firepower for aft "chase" weaponry. As an admiral said "Why is the front armoured? Because that's what's pointed to the enemy". Plus a lot of other things such as its potential use of a battlecruiser-grade engine would factor into its unpopularity. After all, the Navy doesn't always go for the most effective hulls. 

 

I did think about the "town" on top of each Imperial warship, and I figure it was moved more to the centre. Truly an odd, hump-shaped looking thing. 


Beyond Reach - The New Adventures of the Strom Dynasty

The Tau Fleet | The Tyranid Hive Fleet | Battlefleet Jericho


#8 venkelos

venkelos

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,271 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:36 PM

 

I really like them, although I would not allow a capital-ship Imperial vessel with an Aft battery. I find it goes against how the Imperial Navy tends to build its ships (big engines on the back, giant armoured prow on the front), Picturing their giant flying military church with a lance battery sitting in the rear seems a little off to me, and if the design was possible and as effective as you seem to hint in your fluff for it, then the Imperial Navy would never stop building these ships.

 

 

 

Odd.  To me the Imp Military appears so tradition bound that even if a design is better, it doesn't mean that it will be used.

 

Whether it is true or not, that is not true of RT's, and as such I don't see why RT's, have to stick with Imp Military designs and tradition. 

 

As long as the total number of weapon slots and SPs are not violated, why shouldn't RT's redesign their ships?

 

Because it's Imperial Military ships that they get to use without being heretics. Most Rogue Traders don't have the resources and pull to have their own model of ship designed, and the AdMech can be as backwards and hide-bound as the Navy. While RTs can have practically anything available, it's still a question of what's available, and in Imperial designs, aft spots aren't; it smacks of covering escapes, and we all know that the Imperial Navy never retreats. HAH! If you want to fly around in a xenos ship (hey, Eldar like dual prow slots, and I do, too) then you have to deal with the Imperium hating you.

 

All that said, I still like the idea of an aft weapon slot, don't get me wrong. It's just not very fluffy; a fact I probably wouldn't allow to stop me.



#9 Ruwalk

Ruwalk

    Member

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:43 PM

If the aft slot is so unfluffy you can just say it was a failed one off idea the admec and the navy don't mass produce everything that they test make just like Chorda's flagship in EOA.



#10 Erathia

Erathia

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 09:05 PM

If the aft slot is so unfluffy you can just say it was a failed one off idea the admec and the navy don't mass produce everything that they test make just like Chorda's flagship in EOA.

 

A failed prototype is fine, but it really seems to against the idea of the Heavy Cruiser of being so armoured and so able to charge in and take hits that this is the ship where someone chose to put a gun to cover retreats. Also having a gun that close to the engines is bound to have a whole bunch of engineering problems. 

 

I still really like the Heavy Cruiser hulls, and I like the touch of making the Perseverance less tough and more expensive than its comparable, but Aft would work better for Raiders or Transports that either make swooping attack runs, or are fleeing from the enemy. 

 

I think for my players I will present these as is, but I'm going to force the Perseverance into having a built-in Torpedo tube in the aft spot that can't be changed, and also turn a critical hit into it to be a critical hit against the Engines as well. It'd still be a pretty nasty surprise to attack a heavy cruiser from what looks like its unarmed side, only to eat a volley of torpedoes.


  • Marwynn likes this

Citizens of Grace! We have defeated both the Dark Eldar and Ork menaces that threatened your system! We need no thanks nor payments, so long as you do not leave the atmosphere during our salvage operations under pain of death! - Jequin Hos of The Hos Dynasty


#11 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 500 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:15 AM

Fair enough, the Percy is a radical hull that it may not exactly work as intended after all. That's been known to happen, so it could be that despite the designers' best intentions, the weapon only fires directly into the aft quarter or some such. 

 

But I'm honoured that you're presenting this to your group.


Beyond Reach - The New Adventures of the Strom Dynasty

The Tau Fleet | The Tyranid Hive Fleet | Battlefleet Jericho


#12 Erathia

Erathia

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:30 AM

"Present" will probably be throw one of them at them as an enemy, followed by them either trying to board and capture it, or destroying it and trying to get one of their own.

 

Do you think they should have a rule regarding speed control? Their latest kick has been to hunt for an Energistic Conversion Matrix for all of their ships, as it means Cruisers can achieve a pretty good clip of speed, which would actually fit the Perseverance  pretty well I think.


Citizens of Grace! We have defeated both the Dark Eldar and Ork menaces that threatened your system! We need no thanks nor payments, so long as you do not leave the atmosphere during our salvage operations under pain of death! - Jequin Hos of The Hos Dynasty


#13 htsmithium

htsmithium

    Member

  • Members
  • 212 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 10:48 AM

Oddly enough I don't think of a rear gun on such a heavy ship as a way to cover retreats, I tend to think it was put there to give a 360 firing arc for when you burst into the center of an enemy formation.


 ding dong mala mortuus est,

quem veteres strigam

impii strigam

ding dong impiorum strigam mortuus est.


#14 Erathia

Erathia

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 02:12 PM

True, but a ship class whose fastest member has a base speed of 4 is not going to be "bursting" into the center of everything. It's going to be very slowly proceeding towards the enemy, firing at everything. Raiders are the ships for attacking fleets from unfortunate angles.


Citizens of Grace! We have defeated both the Dark Eldar and Ork menaces that threatened your system! We need no thanks nor payments, so long as you do not leave the atmosphere during our salvage operations under pain of death! - Jequin Hos of The Hos Dynasty


#15 Ruwalk

Ruwalk

    Member

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:28 PM

well the idea of the heavy cruiser would be to take the grand cruisers old job of line breaking so i can see the plow into enemy fleet and blast in all direction working well in breaking of formations of capitol ships a big surprise if the enemy doesn't know they can do that, speed is not a huge factor is pushing people apart. 



#16 Marwynn

Marwynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 500 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 10:27 PM

For what it's worth, the Perseverance's was, in my mind, a reaction to the "straightforward" tactics of the navy that while successful was often costly. This Heavy Cruiser would not have a blind spot. This Heavy Cruiser would keep its broadsides on the enemies and mitigate its poor speed and maneuverability that way. That was the fluff thinking I had when putting it there. Of course, squadron deployment and tactics would do most of the work at keeping it alive in any case.


Beyond Reach - The New Adventures of the Strom Dynasty

The Tau Fleet | The Tyranid Hive Fleet | Battlefleet Jericho


#17 Erathia

Erathia

    Member

  • Members
  • 904 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 10:50 PM

Ships really don't have much a blind spot though. Cruisers are powerful because they're able to unleash devastating salvos of fire all at once, and against most ships one single weapon is probably not going to make much of a difference. There's an exception for torpedoes, but with the rules as written those can only be installed in Prow - hence my idea of making the Aft component a locked-in torpedo bay.

 

Also because each ship gets a minimum of a 45 degree turn, there is no place as presented that an enemy vessel at the start of your turn can be out of your firing angle, although they can be out of range after movement. If you're trying to combine Aft weapons with your broadsides, you're going to have to turn anyway which means there's no difference between the Aft and another Prow/Dorsal slot. Being able to fire in every which direction is useful, but it's only when weapons are combined that things become deadly.


  • Tenebrae likes this

Citizens of Grace! We have defeated both the Dark Eldar and Ork menaces that threatened your system! We need no thanks nor payments, so long as you do not leave the atmosphere during our salvage operations under pain of death! - Jequin Hos of The Hos Dynasty


#18 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 937 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 01:29 AM

From an engineering point of view, An aft weapon spot would be problematic for fire control as it will always be essentially firing through the corona of a small star! (The ships plasma drive exhaust) Also; a weapon slot aft is one that cannot be used as your ship closes on the enemy or breaches their line! A dorsal mount would probably serve you better than the aft gun. Of course that failing might explain why they never went into full production!


  • Tenebrae and Erathia like this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS